‘No reason to doubt’ – Why Andrea Johnson signed Khumalo summons

It was yet another day of concessions from the head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac), Andrea Johnson, whose testimony at the Madlanga commission continues to expose process lapses at the institution.

Johnson returned to the commission on Monday to respond to allegations that Idac unlawfully operates outside of its mandate and that it pursued a criminal case against Crime Intelligence head Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence.

Last Thursday, Johnson had to make several admissions after the commission established that she had provided contradictory statements at the ad hoc committee and the Madlanga commission.

She explained that the testimonies contradicted each other because she did not recall some details when she appeared before the ad hoc committee. She said she and her team did not prepare as vigorously for the ad hoc committee as they did for the Madlanga committee.

On Monday, the commission had to take a break after establishing that there were contradictions in the documents Johnson filed on Sunday night and Monday morning and those already at the commission.

“We have to update the exhibit files because we could potentially have documents contradicting the very documents she has filed,” said evidence leader Mahlape Sello.

Her legal representative said she too was “shocked” to learn that the documents were contradictory.

Johnson on 12 Crime Intelligence names

The commission continued to zoom in on the summons issued to investigate Crime Intelligence officials for allegedly manipulating security vetting processes, which resulted in the unlawful issuing of security clearances in favour of personnel within Crime Intelligence.

The summons, which Johnson signed on 6 February 2025, was issued based on the affidavit obtained from National Coloured Congress (NCC) leader Fadiel Adams. The affidavit was followed by A1 statements.

“At the time you signed these summons, what evidence did Idac have to even conclude that there had been manipulation of security vetting processes and unlawful issuing of security clearances in favour of anyone within Crime Intelligence?” Asked Sello.

“According to me, it would have had to have been the Section 27 referral, and it would have had to have been the supplementary affidavits that had been taken in January of 2025,” responded Johnson.

However, last week, she conceded the information contained in the Section 27 referral did not meet the threshold to mandate an Idac investigation.

“My question then is, what must the commission do if it lands at a position where the supplementary statements do not support a claim such as reflected here? That on reading both the Section 27 and the relevant supplementary statement, one cannot reasonably conclude that a crime such as reflected here has been committed or contemplated,” continued Sello.

“So, if it’s not made out in the supplementary, because that is what the supplementary sought to do, then these become problematic,” responded Johnson.

Names reappear

The issue of the additional names came up again, as the summons included the names not originally mentioned in Adams’ affidavit.

Johnson said the summons was drafted by investigators, who briefed her on the matters and she signed.

“The issue I focused on, chair, was the briefing by the investigator indicating what was required and why and from whom. It was a briefing, and then I signed the subpoena,” said Johnson.

“Yes. But you accept that as you sign, you accept that you are satisfied with everything that’s on here, including the annexures, that everything is what it should be, which is why you signed. So you did satisfy yourself that these names are correctly included in the summons?” asked Sello.

“I had no reason to doubt the briefing that was given to me by the investigator. So I didn’t ask for a document. I was satisfied with the briefing that I was given, that as an investigation team, they identified that this is the investigation that is outstanding. This is what they require for the investigation, and this is what it is that must be subpoenaed,” responded Johnson.

Johnson said she satisfied herself that the investigator who compiled these names had done their work and then took their word for it.

“You open yourself up for potential manipulation by some of your investigators because you trust them implicitly,” said Sello.

Johnson said she noted Sello’s point.

Problematic summons?

The commissioners also took issue with the scope of the summons, saying it opens the investigation process up to manipulation.

Johnson explained that the additional names included could have been because of information obtained from the additional A1 statements that were taken, and not just Adams’ affidavit.

“By that stage, they would have had the engagements with Adams. And in terms of those additional statements, I’m not sure that additional documents were provided, but they would have had a two-fold basis upon which they relied on,” said Johnson.

‘Any individual’

However, included in the summons is the clause which includes “any and all individuals or entities whose identities are currently unknown, but which may become known during the investigation”.

“Considering the purpose for which you are issuing, you would be issuing a Section 28 investigation; there should be a limit to the powers that are granted. This clause could very well discover my name in there, and I become subject to this investigation. Is that proper, though? Because it’s a limitless power and authorisation here,” asked Sello.

“Any and all individuals or entities whose identities are currently unknown, but which may become known during the course of the investigation. Once those details come through, investigators are able to determine whether those are persons of interest to be investigated, or those are persons whose names have come up and are potential witnesses.

“So technically it’s left to the investigators. If they like me, they come across by name, they don’t have to investigate. But if they don’t like me, then they investigate. Do you understand my challenge? Because I think too much power and discretion reside with them. And that somehow has the potential to undermine the system,” said Sello.

“I take your point, but that shouldn’t be done,” said Johnson.

The commissioners highlighted that the clause was “very much open to abuse if you’re not controlling it, if they don’t come back to you to justify”.